By JOSEPH LOH - The Star Online - 25 April 2010
A recently-tabled bill makes it possible for a congestion charge to be implemented for cars entering Kuala Lumpur’s city centre. But critics say a reliable and efficient public transport system needs to be in place first.
WITH the tabling of the Land Public Transport (LPT) Bill in Parliament recently, Malaysia has taken the first step towards the introduction of an area congestion pricing (ACP) scheme in traffic-snarled cities around the country.
This congestion toll system, similar to the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) in Singapore, and the Congestion Charge (CC) in London, England, makes users pay to use roads in the city centre to reduce traffic jams and to promote more efficient use of roads.
This Bill goes hand in hand with another, the Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat Bill (Land Public Transport Commission, SPAD) which empowers the formation of an authority in charge of all matters related to public transport, be it road or rail.
Moaz Yusuf Ahmad, advisor to The Association For The Improvement Of Mass Transit (Transit) explains the purpose of ACP.
“Roads are valuable because there is a limited amount of space in the city. Drivers willing to pay more will have the option of using the roads, but it is not meant to prevent people from driving into the city centre. Rather, it is to discourage them from driving alone, encouraging people to car pool, or to use alternative transport,” he says.
Moaz adds that charging a premium for using roads in the city makes sense.
“If a house in the city costs more than that in the suburbs, the cost of the roads should be higher as well,” he says.
Goh Bok Yen, a transport planning consultant, says that at a basic level, it encourages people to switch to an alternative other than driving.
“The existing road space can be used more effectively and will make better use of the urban road system,” he says.
London and Singapore are considered to be good models of a congestion charge system, and its basic goal has been achieved. In February 2004, one year after London introduced the CC, Transport for London estimated traffic levels during charging hours showed a reduction of 18%, with a reduction of 30% in cars.
This also led to a significant gain in bus reliability, and London buses experienced up to a 60% reduction in disruption caused by traffic jams.
The point to note is that a congestion toll – if properly implemented – can be effective.
Moaz says that cars coming into the city centre are typically of single or low occupancy, and the average number of people in a car is a paltry 1.08.
“If we have an ACP, it would immediately reduce the (number of) cars coming into the city centre. If we increase the people from one to two per car, we can reduce the number of cars by half, and that would make a big difference,” he explains.
The price of deterrence
A pertinent question is the amount that will be charged. In Singapore, the ERP rates vary from 50 cents to S$4.00 (RM1.17 to RM9.30) per road travelled, while London’s CC is £8 (RM39.28) per day.
Goh believes that the quantum charged should be reflected by the price of the substitute available.
“It is like the elasticity of demand. If you have a very good substitute, people will switch to it even though the ACP price is not high. The resistance of people is reflected by availability of public transport,” says Goh.
There is also the question of where the collected funds end up.
London collected £325.7mil (RM1.6bil) in congestion charges in its 2008-2009 financial year, and after deducting all operating costs, had a net profit of £148.5mil (RM729.1mil). This sum was spent entirely on improving transport in line with the Mayor of London’s transport strategy.
Which is why Goh is strongly against privatisation of any local ACP collection system.
“It needs to be pumped back into the roads and the public transport system. If you privatise it, then profits will be channelled away. In Malaysia, we have a painful experience of road tolls. Every time a highway is completed, people should be happy, but these days everybody complains about it. We do not want that repeated for the ACP,” says Goh.
Moaz believes the sharing of information is crucial.
“It is frustrating not to have information, especially in the IT age, We have to inform people how the system works, what it is for, and tell them where the money is going. If we do not do that, people are going to object and think it is just another money pit,” he says.
However, what both London and Singapore share is a vital feature that makes a congestion toll system possible – a comprehensive, efficient and reliable public transport system. This is practically a prerequisite before a congestion toll can be implemented.
Goh says the basic requirement that has to be fulfilled is for motorists to have a viable, alternative mode of transport.
“Is public transport in KL today a reasonable substitute for a private car? It is not, and we are very far from it. It needs to have the elements of comfort, reliability, frequency and safety.
“You want something that can substitute for the whole journey in a reasonable manner. If we implement ACP before reaching that level, we leave the commuter no alternative but to drive and pay,” he says.
Goh adds that before the CC was implemented in London, the public transport system was at a very high standard and carried up to 70% of the commuters to work every day.
“Here, only about 18% of commuters use public transport. But looking at it in a positive light, we have a huge market for public transport,” he says.
Moaz, however, says the public should be aware that public transport will never be as comfortable and convenient as a private car.
“It will never reach that standard but it will give different advantages a private car will not give,” he says.
Comfort is a consideration, but Moaz says this is not the most important factor.
“People know they may have to stand, and sitting space will be cramped, but they are willing to sacrifice that personal comfort,” he says.
The most important factors, in descending order, are reliability, frequency, comfort, speed, information and the fare, he stresses.
The underlying fact is that there are simply not enough buses, trains, routes, accessibility from the house to the station and from the station to the destination to make public transport attractive.
“If we want congestion pricing, we must take a great leap forward in improving the public transport system. At the moment, it is premature to talk about it. What it really needs is a complete revamp of the system.
“Right now, we have not reached an acceptable level of public transport. The recent improvements (in the form of RapidKL and others) are just playing catch-up. What we have done is getting to a level we should have been five years ago,” says Moaz.
Goh agrees, saying that the public transport system should have been improved long before the rapid growth of private vehicle ownership.
“We have not done much for public transport until the last five years, but we have been talking about it for more than 25 years,” he says.
Goh believes that an ACP on its own is not sufficient to solve traffic problems – what is needed is a multi-faceted approach.
“For example, at one time Singapore was targeting low occupancy vehicles, and later high-occupancy vehicles too, and now everyone pays – even motorcycles or public transport vehicles.
“It also wanted to constrain vehicle ownership to restrict the number of cars on the road. They went another step further by having off-peak hours and weekend cars, and those are the ones with red plates,” he says.
Moaz also believes that ACP by itself will not accomplish the goal of reducing the number of cars on the road.
Incentives needed
“That is only one solution, and we would have liked to see other initiatives included in the Bill. For example, there should have been a package of incentives to encourage people to take public transport,” he says.
Apart from improving pubic transport, Goh says, there is a need for alternative routes around the city centre.
“Right now you may have to go through the city centre if you want to get to a particular destination from another. We should have a choice of roads but the linkages are missing,” he says.
He also thinks the proposed roads indicated by the Draft KL City Plan 2020 for ACP is too restrictive.
“The ACP outlined in the plan is constrained mainly to the central business district. It should be an area similar to the area surrounded by the middle ring road (Jalan Tun Razak). Also, with a defined boundary it will be easier to administer,” says Goh.
Moaz goes further and looks at the Commission itself.
“One of our biggest concerns is that the SPAD will be a re-organisation rather than a total reform of public transport. They are combining the Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board and the Department of Railways, which handle all commercial transport on roads and rail respectively, into one organisation.
“Structurally it is better, but is it going to make real changes in the public transport system? If there is no reform, it will just be structural and nothing will change on the road,” he says.
Moaz says what is needed is something like the London model, which is called Transport for London (TFL).
“Say we call it Rapid for KL, and it will not be operating a service but instead focuses on managing the system. Companies like Len Seng or Metrobus would work for them, and the RapidKL bus and LRT services could be spun off as individual companies and work for the company. So Rapid for KL would be the single brand and face of public transport for Kuala Lumpur,” he suggests.
Optimistic for the future
Moaz says the new Bills do represent a step forward in reducing Kuala Lumpur’s traffic woes. “Creating the SPAD is a step forward, and it could take us to a major leap in public transport if they are willing to push for it.
“But if the SPAD does not push and take the lead on this, it will be 20 years of the same. Without a total reform of the public transport system, it is premature to talk about ACP,” he says.
“Under the current system, we are limited by a bureaucratic set of rules. Unless we can get past that we will not be able to achieve the quality of service and information required,” adds Moaz.
Goh says all factors such as public transport, alternative roads and other matters need to be achieved before ACP is implemented.
“It would be optimistic to say we can develop it within five years. But in 10 years’ time, it is possible. This would be two five-year plans, and if we don’t achieve it, then we are not serious about it,” says Goh.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Paying a price for less congestion in the city
By LIM CHIA YING - The Star Online - 26 April 2010
WHEN the Land Public Transport Bill 2010 was tabled for its first reading at Parliament two weeks ago, it generated a lot of interest from various quarters.
The act, among others, introduces an area congestion pricing scheme for certain areas during peak hours.
It also spells out a fine of up to RM2,000 or six months imprisonment or both for those who fail to pay the charge.
However, certain parties have come out against the bill, asking if it will be enough to encourage motorists to switch to public transportation.
Association for the Improvement of Mass Transit Klang Valley (Transit) adviser Moaz Yusuf Ahmad said it was an important issue but, currently, many had no choice but to use their own vehicles.
He said the congestion fee was part of the Government Transfor-mation Programme beyond 2012/2013 but the concept had not been marketed properly, resulting in negative comments and concerns over its possible implementation.
“Currently, there is no incentive for those who use private vehicles to switch to public transport.
Gridlock: Most of the concerned parties agree that the public transport system must be improved before congestion charges are introduced.
“Naturally, questions will arise on how the government will implement and manage the system and where the fees collected will go.
“Motorists must be made to realise that public transport will mean less worries about double-parking, the jaga kereta menace and stress.
“Those who want the convenience of using their own vehicles during peak hours will have to pay for it, which is a fair deal. However, the root of the problem is still our public transportation system,” Moaz said.
He pointed out that the Kota Damansara-Cheras line, which was announced in 2006, had still not taken off four years later.
“The government cannot rely on building LRT lines alone as it takes time to set up the infrastructure,” Moaz said.
Instead, he champions the need for bus-rapid-transit (BRT) systems, which he says are an efficient and cost-effective means of moving a largest number of people on the road.
“Bus lanes have to be introduced and enforced and the entire bus system must be reorganised. Transit feels there should be a physical separation of the lanes,” he said.
A motorist, who only wished to be known as William, said he worked in Bukit Bintang and, despite having a monorail station nearby, chooses to drive to work.
According to him, there are not enough parking spaces at the monorail stations and he does not like the crowd in the trains.
“If the congestion fees are introduced, I might not drive but it depends on the quantum. If I can afford it, I will still drive,” William said.
Bukit Bintang MP Fong Kui Lun also thinks that congestion charges are not appropriate now as the public transport system is still fragmented.
“There are many destinations that the LRT and buses do not service. Congestion charges should only be introduced when between 50% and 70% of city folk use public transport,” he said, adding that in Japan, about 75% of its population used public transport.
Moaz felt that the congestion charges should only be imposed as a last resort. Instead, he suggested other options like increasing parking charges in various parts of the city or having tax charges for certain car registration plates.
“With congestion fees, the amount should be small enough to slowly encourage people to use public transport or carpool.
“Now, most cars entering KL only have one occupant. If we can increase the average to two per vehicle, we can halve the number of cars on the road,” he said.
However, not everyone is enthusiastic about carpooling, with Cheras MP Tan Kok Wai saying that it had been tried unsuccessfully in the past.
“I recently read an article that provided statistics on the use of public transport in the Klang Valley. In 1985, 34% of the population used public transport. Today, that number has dropped to about 10%.
“This just shows a failure of the system. About three-and-a-half years ago, Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) had organised a forum on a similar area congestion pricing scheme but rejected the idea after negative feedback,” he said.
“In many car-producing countries, cars are affordable yet many opt to use public transport because it is efficient.
“The Bill should be withdrawn and reintroduced when the time is right. More should be done for public transport first,” he added.
Taxi passengers may also have to pay more if the Bill is imposed on cab services.
Federal Territory and Selangor Taxi Operators Association president Datuk Aslah Abdullah said this was the case in Singapore.
“However, we do not know if taxis, which are considered public transportation, are covered by the Bill.
“I’m worried that if the Bill comes into place and bus and LRT services improve, no one will want to take taxis, as customers will the decide on the cheapest form of transport,” Aslah said.
Klang Valley Taxi Owners Association president Abdul Jalil Maarof also said any congestion fees should be reduced for public vehicles like taxis and buses.
In a speech prepared by Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin for the Asian Metrocity Summit 2010 early this month, he said the present Klang Valley public transport share was only 10% although the government planned to increase it to 13% by yearend.
In his text, Muhyiddin said the Government Transformation Roadmap reflected a policy shift towards demand-side management.
“Once the public transport share reaches its target of 25% by 2013 in the Klang Valley, we’ll implement demand management initiatives like congestion pricing and parking surcharges,” he said.
When contacted, Federal Territories and Urban Wellbeing Minister Datuk Raja Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin said as far as he was concerned, the ruling would not be enforced at the moment.
“We cannot afford to burden the people now, especially when our public transportation is still not up to par.
“If public transport has achieved its targets, then this law can be reconsidered,” he said.
WHEN the Land Public Transport Bill 2010 was tabled for its first reading at Parliament two weeks ago, it generated a lot of interest from various quarters.
The act, among others, introduces an area congestion pricing scheme for certain areas during peak hours.
It also spells out a fine of up to RM2,000 or six months imprisonment or both for those who fail to pay the charge.
However, certain parties have come out against the bill, asking if it will be enough to encourage motorists to switch to public transportation.
Association for the Improvement of Mass Transit Klang Valley (Transit) adviser Moaz Yusuf Ahmad said it was an important issue but, currently, many had no choice but to use their own vehicles.
He said the congestion fee was part of the Government Transfor-mation Programme beyond 2012/2013 but the concept had not been marketed properly, resulting in negative comments and concerns over its possible implementation.
“Currently, there is no incentive for those who use private vehicles to switch to public transport.
Gridlock: Most of the concerned parties agree that the public transport system must be improved before congestion charges are introduced.
“Naturally, questions will arise on how the government will implement and manage the system and where the fees collected will go.
“Motorists must be made to realise that public transport will mean less worries about double-parking, the jaga kereta menace and stress.
“Those who want the convenience of using their own vehicles during peak hours will have to pay for it, which is a fair deal. However, the root of the problem is still our public transportation system,” Moaz said.
He pointed out that the Kota Damansara-Cheras line, which was announced in 2006, had still not taken off four years later.
“The government cannot rely on building LRT lines alone as it takes time to set up the infrastructure,” Moaz said.
Instead, he champions the need for bus-rapid-transit (BRT) systems, which he says are an efficient and cost-effective means of moving a largest number of people on the road.
“Bus lanes have to be introduced and enforced and the entire bus system must be reorganised. Transit feels there should be a physical separation of the lanes,” he said.
A motorist, who only wished to be known as William, said he worked in Bukit Bintang and, despite having a monorail station nearby, chooses to drive to work.
According to him, there are not enough parking spaces at the monorail stations and he does not like the crowd in the trains.
“If the congestion fees are introduced, I might not drive but it depends on the quantum. If I can afford it, I will still drive,” William said.
Bukit Bintang MP Fong Kui Lun also thinks that congestion charges are not appropriate now as the public transport system is still fragmented.
“There are many destinations that the LRT and buses do not service. Congestion charges should only be introduced when between 50% and 70% of city folk use public transport,” he said, adding that in Japan, about 75% of its population used public transport.
Moaz felt that the congestion charges should only be imposed as a last resort. Instead, he suggested other options like increasing parking charges in various parts of the city or having tax charges for certain car registration plates.
“With congestion fees, the amount should be small enough to slowly encourage people to use public transport or carpool.
“Now, most cars entering KL only have one occupant. If we can increase the average to two per vehicle, we can halve the number of cars on the road,” he said.
However, not everyone is enthusiastic about carpooling, with Cheras MP Tan Kok Wai saying that it had been tried unsuccessfully in the past.
“I recently read an article that provided statistics on the use of public transport in the Klang Valley. In 1985, 34% of the population used public transport. Today, that number has dropped to about 10%.
“This just shows a failure of the system. About three-and-a-half years ago, Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) had organised a forum on a similar area congestion pricing scheme but rejected the idea after negative feedback,” he said.
“In many car-producing countries, cars are affordable yet many opt to use public transport because it is efficient.
“The Bill should be withdrawn and reintroduced when the time is right. More should be done for public transport first,” he added.
Taxi passengers may also have to pay more if the Bill is imposed on cab services.
Federal Territory and Selangor Taxi Operators Association president Datuk Aslah Abdullah said this was the case in Singapore.
“However, we do not know if taxis, which are considered public transportation, are covered by the Bill.
“I’m worried that if the Bill comes into place and bus and LRT services improve, no one will want to take taxis, as customers will the decide on the cheapest form of transport,” Aslah said.
Klang Valley Taxi Owners Association president Abdul Jalil Maarof also said any congestion fees should be reduced for public vehicles like taxis and buses.
In a speech prepared by Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin for the Asian Metrocity Summit 2010 early this month, he said the present Klang Valley public transport share was only 10% although the government planned to increase it to 13% by yearend.
In his text, Muhyiddin said the Government Transformation Roadmap reflected a policy shift towards demand-side management.
“Once the public transport share reaches its target of 25% by 2013 in the Klang Valley, we’ll implement demand management initiatives like congestion pricing and parking surcharges,” he said.
When contacted, Federal Territories and Urban Wellbeing Minister Datuk Raja Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin said as far as he was concerned, the ruling would not be enforced at the moment.
“We cannot afford to burden the people now, especially when our public transportation is still not up to par.
“If public transport has achieved its targets, then this law can be reconsidered,” he said.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Earth Hour 8.30pm - 9.30pm Tonite
Dear Friends, show your support by switching of your lights at home between 8.30pm to 9.30pm in solidarity with Earth Hour.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Climate change uncertainty is no reason for inaction since we can't rule out risk
We don't have to believe that our house will burn down to take out insurance. So why delay taking action to reduce emissions?
Tim Palmer guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 March 2010 07.30 GMT
A man walks in the rain along the Albert Embankment in London. Photograph: Shaun Curry/AFP/Getty Images
Climate change is sometimes presented in simple black and white terms. You either believe it or you don't. Perhaps after the recent controversies over email leaks and melting Himalayan glaciers, some may have decided to change camp.
But this is a false dichotomy. Indeed the notion of "belief" plays no role at all in science, whether about climate change or anything else. The Royal Society, the UK's national academy of science, was founded 350 years ago on this very basis, with the motto Nullius in verba, or "take nobody's word for it". The founders took nothing for granted and chose to investigate observations and search for the conclusions that best fit them. The notion that these conclusions can never be considered certain and immutable, underpinned both their actions and those that came after them. As James Gleick wrote about the great 20th century theoretical physicist Richard Feynman; he believed in the primacy of doubt, not as a blemish on our ability to know, but as the essence of knowing.
Modern day weather prediction is inherently uncertain. Every day, weather forecast centres will generate an ensemble, typically of 50 individual weather predictions, in order to assess uncertainty in the weather up to a week or more ahead. The individual predictions have very slightly different starting conditions, reflecting the fact that the weather observations which generate a forecast's initial state are neither complete nor wholly accurate. When the atmosphere is in a predictable state, all 50 predictions are more or less identical for the coming week and the forecaster can say with great confidence what the weather will be like. On the other hand, when the atmosphere is in a chaotic state, the best the forecaster can talk about are probabilities of different outcomes.
Some, perhaps those without scientific training, may see probabilistic predictions as an evasion of responsibility. However, in reality, probabilistic predictions embody the scientific method. In any case, what is better for decision making, a forecast with some realistic measure of uncertainty, or some grossly overconfident prediction with no hint of uncertainty? Worldwide, probabilistic weather forecasts are now used by those making decisions to evacuate people exposed to river flooding, or to intense storms. For better or for worse, they are also central to who trade on future energy prices and other weather-sensitive commodities.
Similar "ensemble" methods are used to predict climate change, except here it is also critical to vary uncertain parameters in the climate models as well as uncertain estimates of how greenhouse gas emissions will change over the course of the century. As with the weather forecasts, contemporary climate predictions are essentially probabilistic. Hence for example, based on the ensemble of the world's climate models, we can estimate that over the Asian monsoon region, a season that was so wet it would only have a 1 in 20 chance of occurring in the 20th century, could have a 1 in 3 chance of occurring by the end of the 21st century.
We don't have to believe that our house will burn down in the coming year to take out insurance. Similarly we don't have to believe that dangerous climate change will occur to take action to cut emissions. A key question that everyone concerned by the climate change issue should ask, particularly those who are sceptical, is this. How large does the probability of serious climate change have to be before we should start cutting emissions? To be specific, how large does the probability have to be that by the end of this century, large parts of Bangladesh will under water because of sea level rise and a substantially more intense monsoon system? Or that the Amazonian rainforest will die because of shifts in rainfall patterns over South America? Or that the type of drought that plagued sub-Saharan Africa in the 1980s will become a quasi-permanent feature? 0.1%, 1%, 10%, 50%? Considered this way, it's clear that the dichotomy between the "climate believers" vs "climate sceptics" is indeed a false one.
The scientific method is sometimes described as "organised scepticism", and this, rather than some logical progression from one certainty to the next, characterises the inherently uncertain path of scientific progress. As one leading climate scientist put it: "In truth, we are all climate sceptics." However, despite the climate scientists' best efforts at scepticism, it simply has not been possible to rule out the risk of the sort of climate changes discussed above.
Handling uncertainty is key to the scientific method, but, conversely, the existence of uncertainty is not itself cause for inaction.
• Tim Palmer is a Royal Society 2010 Anniversary Research Professor at the Unversity of Oxford, and is organiser of a two-day discussion meeting at the Royal Society (22-23 March) on Handling Uncertainty in Science. The meeting includes speakers as diverse as Professor Sir Roger Penrose, eminent cosmologist and theoretical physicist, and Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England.
Tim Palmer guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 March 2010 07.30 GMT
A man walks in the rain along the Albert Embankment in London. Photograph: Shaun Curry/AFP/Getty Images
Climate change is sometimes presented in simple black and white terms. You either believe it or you don't. Perhaps after the recent controversies over email leaks and melting Himalayan glaciers, some may have decided to change camp.
But this is a false dichotomy. Indeed the notion of "belief" plays no role at all in science, whether about climate change or anything else. The Royal Society, the UK's national academy of science, was founded 350 years ago on this very basis, with the motto Nullius in verba, or "take nobody's word for it". The founders took nothing for granted and chose to investigate observations and search for the conclusions that best fit them. The notion that these conclusions can never be considered certain and immutable, underpinned both their actions and those that came after them. As James Gleick wrote about the great 20th century theoretical physicist Richard Feynman; he believed in the primacy of doubt, not as a blemish on our ability to know, but as the essence of knowing.
Modern day weather prediction is inherently uncertain. Every day, weather forecast centres will generate an ensemble, typically of 50 individual weather predictions, in order to assess uncertainty in the weather up to a week or more ahead. The individual predictions have very slightly different starting conditions, reflecting the fact that the weather observations which generate a forecast's initial state are neither complete nor wholly accurate. When the atmosphere is in a predictable state, all 50 predictions are more or less identical for the coming week and the forecaster can say with great confidence what the weather will be like. On the other hand, when the atmosphere is in a chaotic state, the best the forecaster can talk about are probabilities of different outcomes.
Some, perhaps those without scientific training, may see probabilistic predictions as an evasion of responsibility. However, in reality, probabilistic predictions embody the scientific method. In any case, what is better for decision making, a forecast with some realistic measure of uncertainty, or some grossly overconfident prediction with no hint of uncertainty? Worldwide, probabilistic weather forecasts are now used by those making decisions to evacuate people exposed to river flooding, or to intense storms. For better or for worse, they are also central to who trade on future energy prices and other weather-sensitive commodities.
Similar "ensemble" methods are used to predict climate change, except here it is also critical to vary uncertain parameters in the climate models as well as uncertain estimates of how greenhouse gas emissions will change over the course of the century. As with the weather forecasts, contemporary climate predictions are essentially probabilistic. Hence for example, based on the ensemble of the world's climate models, we can estimate that over the Asian monsoon region, a season that was so wet it would only have a 1 in 20 chance of occurring in the 20th century, could have a 1 in 3 chance of occurring by the end of the 21st century.
We don't have to believe that our house will burn down in the coming year to take out insurance. Similarly we don't have to believe that dangerous climate change will occur to take action to cut emissions. A key question that everyone concerned by the climate change issue should ask, particularly those who are sceptical, is this. How large does the probability of serious climate change have to be before we should start cutting emissions? To be specific, how large does the probability have to be that by the end of this century, large parts of Bangladesh will under water because of sea level rise and a substantially more intense monsoon system? Or that the Amazonian rainforest will die because of shifts in rainfall patterns over South America? Or that the type of drought that plagued sub-Saharan Africa in the 1980s will become a quasi-permanent feature? 0.1%, 1%, 10%, 50%? Considered this way, it's clear that the dichotomy between the "climate believers" vs "climate sceptics" is indeed a false one.
The scientific method is sometimes described as "organised scepticism", and this, rather than some logical progression from one certainty to the next, characterises the inherently uncertain path of scientific progress. As one leading climate scientist put it: "In truth, we are all climate sceptics." However, despite the climate scientists' best efforts at scepticism, it simply has not been possible to rule out the risk of the sort of climate changes discussed above.
Handling uncertainty is key to the scientific method, but, conversely, the existence of uncertainty is not itself cause for inaction.
• Tim Palmer is a Royal Society 2010 Anniversary Research Professor at the Unversity of Oxford, and is organiser of a two-day discussion meeting at the Royal Society (22-23 March) on Handling Uncertainty in Science. The meeting includes speakers as diverse as Professor Sir Roger Penrose, eminent cosmologist and theoretical physicist, and Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Tiered fuel plan scrapped; Govt will not increase price for now
Friday March 5, 2010
By MAZWIN NIK ANIS
The Star Online
PUTRAJAYA: The Government has officially scrapped its plan to introduce the two-tiered restructuring of fuel subsidy following negative feedback from the public.
Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob said the decision was taken because the Government did not want such an important policy devoid of public support or acceptance.
“Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has stated that this is the people’s Government and it is open to views. Today, the Government has proven that we are not rhetoric and we truly hold on to our words.
“We have heard the people’s voices and now we have proven that we are willing to scrap the plan because the rakyat do not want it,” he told reporters here yesterday.
Ismail Sabri said the price of fuel would remain the same for now as “there was no directive to announce any hike”.
“I don’t know when that will happen but the public must remember that fuel price fluctuates.
“Foreigners can still purchase fuel according to petrol pump price. But the policy governing the sale of petrol to foreign-registered vehicles at border areas remains,” he said, adding that the ministry would be proposing to the Cabinet another “policy for foreigners”.
Foreign-registered vehicles are only allowed to pump a maximum of 20 litres at petrol stations within 50km radius from the border.
Ismail Sabri said the Government was subsidising nine sen more now in addition to the 30 sen it was already forking out for every litre of RON95 due to the commodity price increase.
Last year, the Government forked out RM3.4bil to subsidise petrol and RM1.9bil for diesel.
The plan, originally set to be implemented on May 1, was to introduce a two-tiered pricing system for petrol based on engine capacity while foreigners would have to pay the market price.
It called for the mandatory use of MyKad to differentiate Malaysians from foreigners, requiring the need for MyKad readers at petrol stations.
Ismail Sabri also said that a subsidy rationalisation laboratory headed by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Idris Jala was studying the implementation of government subsidies.
By MAZWIN NIK ANIS
The Star Online
PUTRAJAYA: The Government has officially scrapped its plan to introduce the two-tiered restructuring of fuel subsidy following negative feedback from the public.
Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob said the decision was taken because the Government did not want such an important policy devoid of public support or acceptance.
“Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has stated that this is the people’s Government and it is open to views. Today, the Government has proven that we are not rhetoric and we truly hold on to our words.
“We have heard the people’s voices and now we have proven that we are willing to scrap the plan because the rakyat do not want it,” he told reporters here yesterday.
Ismail Sabri said the price of fuel would remain the same for now as “there was no directive to announce any hike”.
“I don’t know when that will happen but the public must remember that fuel price fluctuates.
“Foreigners can still purchase fuel according to petrol pump price. But the policy governing the sale of petrol to foreign-registered vehicles at border areas remains,” he said, adding that the ministry would be proposing to the Cabinet another “policy for foreigners”.
Foreign-registered vehicles are only allowed to pump a maximum of 20 litres at petrol stations within 50km radius from the border.
Ismail Sabri said the Government was subsidising nine sen more now in addition to the 30 sen it was already forking out for every litre of RON95 due to the commodity price increase.
Last year, the Government forked out RM3.4bil to subsidise petrol and RM1.9bil for diesel.
The plan, originally set to be implemented on May 1, was to introduce a two-tiered pricing system for petrol based on engine capacity while foreigners would have to pay the market price.
It called for the mandatory use of MyKad to differentiate Malaysians from foreigners, requiring the need for MyKad readers at petrol stations.
Ismail Sabri also said that a subsidy rationalisation laboratory headed by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Idris Jala was studying the implementation of government subsidies.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Petrol price expected to increase by 10sen
Kong See Hoh
KUALA LUMPUR (Feb 21, 2010) : The government is expected to announce a price increase of 10sen a litre for RON95 petrol and diesel when the new fuel price mechanism is revealed in mid-March, Sin Chew Daily reported today.
The price of RON97 will also be increased but there is no decision yet on the quantum.
RON95 is currently retailed at RM1.80 a litre, RON97 and diesel at RM2.05 and RM1.70 a litre respectively.
Finance Ministry sources said the government has decided to raise fuel prices as it cannot provide more subsidy needed to maintain fuel prices at current levels following a spike in global crude oil prices.
The government believes an increase of 10sen a litre is acceptable to the public.
The sources also told the daily the government has yet to come up with a fuel price mechanism that is acceptable to all quarters, and as a result it may put off or may even be forced to abandon some new measures that are already in the pipeline.
“Plans were afoot for the registration of vehicle owners and their MyKad through Maybank and petrol kiosks to begin in April under the proposed ‘one vehicle owner, one subsidy’ fuel subsidy mechanism. It looks like the plan may not take off.”
The sources said the cap on selling 20 litres of petrol to foreign cars near Malaysian borders will continue to be implemented.
Meanwhile, Petrol Dealers Association of Malaysia president Datuk Hashim Othman believes that foreign car owners will pay the market price when the new fuel price mechanism is introduced next month.
He said the government’s main intention is to provide subsidy to those who qualify for it, to protect the interest of the lower and middle-income groups as well as save on expenditures.
source - www.thesundaily.com
KUALA LUMPUR (Feb 21, 2010) : The government is expected to announce a price increase of 10sen a litre for RON95 petrol and diesel when the new fuel price mechanism is revealed in mid-March, Sin Chew Daily reported today.
The price of RON97 will also be increased but there is no decision yet on the quantum.
RON95 is currently retailed at RM1.80 a litre, RON97 and diesel at RM2.05 and RM1.70 a litre respectively.
Finance Ministry sources said the government has decided to raise fuel prices as it cannot provide more subsidy needed to maintain fuel prices at current levels following a spike in global crude oil prices.
The government believes an increase of 10sen a litre is acceptable to the public.
The sources also told the daily the government has yet to come up with a fuel price mechanism that is acceptable to all quarters, and as a result it may put off or may even be forced to abandon some new measures that are already in the pipeline.
“Plans were afoot for the registration of vehicle owners and their MyKad through Maybank and petrol kiosks to begin in April under the proposed ‘one vehicle owner, one subsidy’ fuel subsidy mechanism. It looks like the plan may not take off.”
The sources said the cap on selling 20 litres of petrol to foreign cars near Malaysian borders will continue to be implemented.
Meanwhile, Petrol Dealers Association of Malaysia president Datuk Hashim Othman believes that foreign car owners will pay the market price when the new fuel price mechanism is introduced next month.
He said the government’s main intention is to provide subsidy to those who qualify for it, to protect the interest of the lower and middle-income groups as well as save on expenditures.
source - www.thesundaily.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)